Week 4. Politeness and impoliteness

Question 1

what are some pragmatic approaches to politeness?

Answer 1

Robin Lakoff (1973 etc.)

3 politeness rules:

1. don’t impose
2. give options
3. make ‘A’ feel     good

• Different cultures can change these, e.g. distance may not be important to some cultures.

Question 2

how does politeness vary interculturally?

Answer 2

Lakoff, 1990

If I ask my guest ‘Would you like a drink?’ and they say:
 ‘Thank you, that would be nice’
- Distance (impersonality)


‘whatever you’re having/don’t go to any trouble’
- Deference (hesitancy)


Someone comes in and says, ’I’m thirsty, got any orange juice’?
- Camaraderie (informality)

Question 3

two rules of pragmatic competence

Answer 3

1. Be clear.” and “2. Be polite.” (Lakoff 1973: 296).

The first rule corresponds to what Grice later called the Cooperative Principle

While “Be polite” could be further differentiated into:

1. Don’t impose”
2. Give options”; and
3. Make feel good - be friendly

These rules could also be described with the terms distance, deference and camaraderie (Lakoff 1990)

Question 4

what did brown and levinson say about face?

Answer 4

1978

Drew upon Goffman’s concept of face
- talked about politeness being a product of a calculation that the speaker was making in their heads where they were working out the weightiness, is this something that require very explicit politeness or can I be more direct.

Question 5

Shortcomings of B&L’s model?

Answer 5

Not universal across cultures (despite claiming to be so)

Accounts for the ‘model’ speaker and hearer (MP)- has rationality and face

Does not account for speakers who do not have a shared understanding of what is polite (e.g. intercultural differences)

Does not account for those situations in which face-threat mitigation is not a priority (aggressive/rude behaviour)

Question 6

what did Watts believe about politeness?

Answer 6

Richard Watts

• rejects the concept of positive and negative politeness, but incorporates Goffman’s idea of face
• Separates out politeness1 and politeness 2

politeness1: folk conceptions of what is polite
politeness2: theoretical discussions about politeness

• Rather than talking about people being (im)polite, they are said to be “politic”
   Thus, people demonstrate politic behaviour, i.e. they conform to the culturally framed expected behaviour in an interaction.
   Context/situationally dependent

Question 7

what is watts social model of politeness?

Answer 7

Watts (2003) suggests an alternative view of politeness
• Instead of polite or impolite, think appropriate or inappropriate
• This depends on social norms of behaviour
• Conforming to the norms is seen as ‘politic behaviour’
• Focus on how participants in social interaction perceive politeness
• Watts describes face as “socially attributed”
• Face is therefore not a built in quality to be protected, saved, lost, etc.
• It is to be (as Goffman says) “claimed”(and constructed) in interaction

Question 8

discuss Locher

Answer 8

Miriam Locher, 2004

Uses Watts’ concept of politic behaviour

Instead of facework, uses the term ‘relational work’

Focuses on disagreements and power

Examines politic behaviour in terms of ‘markedness’
relational work may be ‘marked’, in other words it stands out. In politeness1 terms this might mean it is either polite or impolite

Question 9

what did Culpeper and Hardaker say about impoliteness?

Answer 9

2017

‘All notions of impoliteness seem to involve behaviours that are considered emotionally negative by at least one participant’
- verbal aggression; verbal conflict; verbal abuse; rudeness

Genuine impoliteness vs.
non-genuine impoliteness
(= mock impoliteness – banter, sarcasm)

Question 10

what are Impoliteness super strategies

Answer 10

Culpeper (1996):

Bald-on record impoliteness: FTA is performed in a direct, clear unambiguous and concise way

Positive impoliteness: use of strategies designed to damage the addressee’s positive face want

Negative impoliteness: use of strategies designed to damage the addressee’s negative face wants

Off-record impoliteness: FTA performed by means of an implicature

Withhold politeness: absence of politeness work where it would be expected

Question 11

critiques of impoliteness super strategies?

Answer 11

Super strategies can be mixed; meaningful separation of positive and negative impoliteness cannot always be easily done

Specific to British English culture

Some communities of practice develop specialised impoliteness strategies (e.g. online ‘trolling’)

Can’t assume that an impoliteness strategy is always performing impoliteness (banter; cementing solidarity)

Question 12

what is the impoliteness formulae?

Answer 12

culpepper, 2011

insults:

• personalised negative vocatives
• personalised negative assertions
• personalised negative references

condolences

message enforcers

dismissals

threats

curses